era of austerity? WHAT era of austerity? I see no austerity on the part of the government. It’s still the era of spend and borrow and print until we go under.
And that is what is basically wrong with New Space, its based on a mythical view of an American Frontier that never was…
It cites NACA as being a major government program that advanced civil aviation. NACA Budgets.
NACA was getting about $4 million a year by 1940 (about $60 million a year in 2010 dollars), and through the 20’s were running about $500,000 a year (about $6 million in 2010 dollars).
In short, the federal government was spending enough on aeronautical research through all of the 1920’s that they could’ve bought a Boeing 737 – after a decade, and by WW-II could’ve bought a 737 every year. By modern standards NACA was a shoestring operation working out of a barn. Then again, maybe that’s why it worked so well.
George,
Yes, replacing NASA with a new NACA would be good and I would strongly support it. But then New Space wouldn’t have a funding source.
Rand, isn’t that what Newt is saying we should do?
I’m a spectator but an interested spectator. The article appears to be saying that the government can and should create conditions in which private entrepreneurs and companies can offer everything they can think of to see if they can develop a market for it. AS I understand it, that fits right in with what Newt is saying we should do.
I find it thrilling beyond words to think of Americans innovating and entreptreneuring our way into space.
From the article:
“In this era of austerity,…..”
era of austerity? WHAT era of austerity? I see no austerity on the part of the government. It’s still the era of spend and borrow and print until we go under.
And that is what is basically wrong with New Space, its based on a mythical view of an American Frontier that never was…
It cites NACA as being a major government program that advanced civil aviation.
NACA Budgets.
NACA was getting about $4 million a year by 1940 (about $60 million a year in 2010 dollars), and through the 20’s were running about $500,000 a year (about $6 million in 2010 dollars).
In short, the federal government was spending enough on aeronautical research through all of the 1920’s that they could’ve bought a Boeing 737 – after a decade, and by WW-II could’ve bought a 737 every year. By modern standards NACA was a shoestring operation working out of a barn. Then again, maybe that’s why it worked so well.
George,
Yes, replacing NASA with a new NACA would be good and I would strongly support it. But then New Space wouldn’t have a funding source.
Rand, isn’t that what Newt is saying we should do?
I’m a spectator but an interested spectator. The article appears to be saying that the government can and should create conditions in which private entrepreneurs and companies can offer everything they can think of to see if they can develop a market for it. AS I understand it, that fits right in with what Newt is saying we should do.
I find it thrilling beyond words to think of Americans innovating and entreptreneuring our way into space.
“NEWT’S TOWN HALL MEETING ON SPACE POLICY” http://conservatives4newt.blogspot.com/2012/01/video-newt-gingrich-town-hall-meeting.html – January 25, 2012 – Cocoa, Florida – 33:42